Would Chelsea have ever won a PL without Abramovic?

Muff_Daddy

Was having this discussion with my brother earlier about thought it would be interesting to see it discussed here.

Assuming that rumours of bankrupcy at Chelsea under Bates were false and they had a reasonable transfer kitty to mount a challenge, would they have won the league? Would they have the world class squad they have now? Would the Special One have arrived? What would become of the Tinkerman?

Looking at the squad pre-Abramovic, there was Cuducini, Terry, Gallas, Lampard and Gudjohnsen, who were members of the squad that won the league twice. Obviously there wouldn't have been €24 on Drogba, but I'd imagine there would still be significant inprovments on the team. Deadwood like Gronkajer etc would be let go as well.

I believe they would have won at least one PL. While they had their billions and a world class manager, Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool were also going through transition periods/just not good enough. With United, the old guard were stepping down (Keane, Beckham gone Giggs not as effective) and they had a young team. Ronaldo wasn't up to speed yet. With Arsenal, they struggled to beat Spurs for 4th place. Liverpool were beaten to 4th by Everton one season.

What do you guys think?

_blank_

Of course not.

Xavi6

Not a hope. Europe maybe but even Liverpool would have had a better chance of winning the league.

Muff_Daddy

DesF wrote: »

Of course not.

O.....K.

What makes you so sure?

_blank_

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

O.....K.

What makes you so sure?

lol, sorry, I got a bit busy in work for a minute, and just hit "submit".

jesus_thats_gre

They could have possibly won it at some stage but they certainly would not have won any of the titles they have won since he took over. Not a hope to be honest.

BKtje

Win it ever? Of course there is a chance.
Win it in the time frame that they did? No way.

FunkZ

Well yeah there's always a chance but it was unlikely.

Muff_Daddy

Another thing, lets assume Chelsea got Cech (Who was only 6 mill, and was a Ranari signature) and a CB paring of Terry and Gallas. Would it not be fair to say that back three contributed in no small part to Chelsea conceding a mere 15 goals in the 2004/2005 season. If that's not league winning form, I don't know what is.

Mitch Connor

Yes.

They were a team on the up anyway. They came very close a few years back but injuries to key players took their toll in the last month or so, ended up finishing 9points back in the end i think.

They would have taken longer, and not been as dominating, but they had a decent side and some good players.

Mr. Incognito

No.

There have been good teams pushing around the fringes before but did not have the depth to win (with the exception of blackburn in the mid 90's) Chelsea would have pushed but alwasy fallen short without the injection of extra cash and the special one's tactical ability to push them over the line.

Zaph

No. Abramovic's millions have allowed them to build an incredibly strong squad, so they can afford to be without big players for a few games and have someone nearly as good fill in. They had some good players before he bought the club, but there was no strength in depth and a few injuries would have weakened the side to the point where they couldn't challenge for the league.

astrofool

A lot of the players that went there, even for middling sums, would not have if it weren't for the lavish wages AND the fact they were buying up lots of other superstars to give a greater chance at success.

I doubt they'd have signed Makelele, or Carvalho, for example, who was a big reason for those goals conceded, Lampard and Terry were two good players in a good team, but by no means league winners.

Terry would also have left as they weren't meeting his wage demands, Abramovich's first signing was getting Terry to sign a new contract, breaking the clubs wage structure.

PHB

Mourinho also wouldn't have come.

Pigman II

They'd have had about as much chance of winning the league as Liverpool.

No that's unfair. Chelsea would have had slightly more of a chance than Liverpool of winning the league.

Vokes

- Chelsea wouldn't have won the league.

- Mourinho would have gone to Liverpool in 2004.

- Liverpool might then have won the leaue by now?

selpher

No, we wouldn't have won it, not by now anyway. A few more years qualifying for the CL and building on what we already had, maybe, who knows. But Jose would've went to Liverpool and brought Carvalho, etc with him and Utd would probably have Terry, Robben and Essien along with anyother targets Kenyon let Roman know about.

stick-dan

hard one to call.In my opinion i reckon they had a decent team in the making but it was indeed mourinho coming to chelsea that signaled the change... Mourinho brought carvalho whom although i hate him is a consistent player...Mourinho would probably have gone to liverpool but who's to know...Would he have made much of a difference? sadly noone will ever know. They had a top class manager when they had him and were stupid to let him go. Chelsea fans can blame abromavich for that blunder.... Basically its hard to determine if they would have won it or not...

~Rebel~

Assuming that rumours of bankrupcy at Chelsea under Bates were false and they had a reasonable transfer kitty to mount a challenge, would they have won the league?

This to begin with is already not the case. It was very public knowledge and had been admitted by all parties at Chelsea that there would be no transfer budget that summer. Zola was even let go so as to get him off the wage bill as they simply couldn't afford him.

They had the makings of a very good team, and would probablly have stayed around the 4th place mark, but I really couldn't see them putting in a title challenge without investment in the club.

grames_bond

if they had gotten their hands on some cash and gotten mourhino in well then i think yes they would have, even iwht out the other multi million pound signings, but without him no i dont think they woulod have!

Sherifu

I doubt it, at least not this decade anyway.

invincibleirish

Very unlikely

Chelsea were 80-100 million sterling in debt when Roman came with his chequebook, those crazy Chelsea village plans and massive wages were bankrupting the club.

Chelsea would have went the same way as Leeds without a benefactor like Roman.

Remember Chelsea only won the league once in the 20th century and were never a "big" club, in London Arsenal, Spurs & West Ham were always bigger and better supported, they were most famous for their awful old ground, hooligan fans and dodgy Bates & Harding.

But with Abramovichs money, everything changed, and TBH, whilst at the time i think all fans were insanely jealous of Chelseas money, nowadays im pretty glad Abramovich never came near Villa or any other club, people like Abramovich, Shinawatra, the Glazers & Hicks/Gillette, either have murky backgrounds or are dishonest in their dealings, they give the PL a bad name. still its just following international trends.

An Citeog

invincibleirish wrote: »

But with Abramovichs money, everything changed, and TBH, whilst at the time i think all fans were insanely jealous of Chelseas money, nowadays im pretty glad Abramovich never came near Villa or any other club, people like Abramovich, Shinawatra, the Glazers & Hicks/Gillette, either have murky backgrounds or are dishonest in their dealings, they give the PL a bad name. still its just following international trends.

Eh, looks like you left out Randy Lerner. Would he not fall into the same category or is he special because he's with Villa?:rolleyes:

Mr Alan

An Citeog wrote: »

Eh, looks like you left out Randy Lerner. Would he not fall into the same category or is he special because he's with Villa?:rolleyes:

he's special, i've had this out with Villa fans on here before!

invincibleirish

An Citeog wrote: »

Eh, looks like you left out Randy Lerner. Would he not fall into the same category or is he special because he's with Villa?:rolleyes:

no Randy lerner would not fit into that category, Shinatwra has blood on his hands, Abramovich made his fortune in murky/dubious circumstances in the mid 1990s, the Glazers and Hicks/Gillette sent their clubs into enormous debt by putting the debt they incurred in buying the clubs onto the clubs.

Do keep up gentlemen.:rolleyes:

*Edit* they give the PL a bad name not because they are foreign like i think you assume i did, but dishonest/unethical business practices and ordering peoples deaths give the PL a bad name.

leninbenjamin

I actually think there is a good chance they would have, or at least challenged for it. had Ambramovich not bought the club someone else would almost certainly have, they had enough assets to make almost any deal profitable (I know their debt was massive but wasn't it more cash flow problems rather than being able to balance the books?). Ranieri already laid the foundations anyway to win the league, and United and Arsenal were both heading towards some sort of transition period, there would have definitely been an opening there without the millions for some of the lower clubs to at least challenge. And Chelsea's moolah almost certainly galvanised Wenger and Ferguson further as the bar was raised. i don't think either club would be as strong as they are today if they didn't have this pressure place on them by Chelsea's ascendency.

Nailz

50 to 2, exactly...

thusspakeblixa

Chelsea pre-Abramovich were always pretty inconsistent
Winning at Old Trafford one week, losing to Palace the next...
so no, IMO

kleefarr

Quite likely in my opinion.

Just check the progression under C. Ranieri to seconded position in the league before they kicked him out and got J. Mourhino. Mourhino won the Prem League with the team that Ranieri had built. Wasn't hard.

BobbyD10

The poll is fairly conclusive.

Mourinho added a couple of key appointments(Carvalho and Drogba) which added to a good squad Ranieri had assembled.

leninbenjamin

BobbyD10 wrote: »

The poll is fairly conclusive.

Mourinho added a couple of key appointments(Carvalho and Drogba) which added to a good squad Ranieri had assembled.

in fairness though, Jose bought players who were pretty much well established. his actions in the transfer market weren't really anything to boast about, any armchair supporter with the money he was given could have assembled a squad as good. and then there's Ferreira...

Vokes

kleefarr wrote: »

Quite likely in my opinion.

Just check the progression under C. Ranieri to seconded position in the league before they kicked him out and got J. Mourhino.

Raineri only got 2nd spot after spending £100mil of Abramovics money. No way was he ever gonna come close to winning the league without it.

An Citeog

invincibleirish wrote: »

no Randy lerner would not fit into that category, Shinatwra has blood on his hands, Abramovich made his fortune in murky/dubious circumstances in the mid 1990s, the Glazers and Hicks/Gillette sent their clubs into enormous debt by putting the debt they incurred in buying the clubs onto the clubs.

Do keep up gentlemen.:rolleyes:

*Edit* they give the PL a bad name not because they are foreign like i think you assume i did, but dishonest/unethical business practices and ordering peoples deaths give the PL a bad name.

Whatever about Shinawatra and Abramovich, the American's motives seem to be one in the same. The only difference is that Lerner got a seriously undervalued club for £63million. In the grand scheme of things, that's not really a huge amount and is something he can afford to take a punt on. Be under no illusions though, he's expecting a return on his money.

The difference between that and G&H and the Glaziers is that their takeovers involved far more money and it simply wasn't possible (/efficient) to finance them through equity alone. Equity capital is more expensive than debt, so that's why it's inefficient.

That said, as a United fan, I'm nowhere near happy with the debt/equity ratio at the club, especially with the volatility of income in the industry.

Galvasean

I seriously doubt they would have one the league without Abramovich's money. Just look at the spending spree since he took over.

BaZmO*

Most definitely not around the time that they did or in the immediate future.
You have to remember that Chelsea's second string team was good enough to win the PL. And that was purely down to the amount of money they spent.

Bubs101

Not a hope. Not only would we not have been able to sign the players we did but Mourinho wouldn't have transformed Cole into a good player and we would have lost a few of our good ones to find some money

WhiteWashMan

i dont think so.
as someone pointed out, they were ever so inconsistant before murinho.
and the addition of players like drogba, robben (for one amazing season anyway) and essien, its completely transformed the team.

lets face it, when you have a team that can put michael ballack on the sideline, you have to feel the wealth of talent on the chelsea pay list should really be winning every single game they play.
oh, hold on, they got rid of their good manager, didnt they!